Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

If abuse isn't to be tolerated we'll have to gag some amount of Scottish Nationalists.

 

I don't mind a bit of abuse - it's the way blokes used to chat in boozers before Twitter mock-offendedness took control of Western society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The important part is that Bill says the deficit debt in Scotland is written off by Westminster. It isn't. Scotland still owns part of the UK deficit debt.

The per head deficit in Scotland is not due to any extravagance being perpetuated here. It is because we have so few folk within a relatively large land mass. If Westminster don't like that fact they have the simple decision to take - cut Scotland off.

Mate, I voted No in the referendum. To stay in the UK.

I voted to stay in the EU but that was only because I foresaw the problems May is facing right now and wouldn't trust Boris or Gove to run an honest raffle. The promise of us being better off by leaving isn't even a myth. It's a downright lie. Wait until things like the money markets in London start being moved abroad and you'll see.

I've no argument with UK austerity. It's not only Scotland being affected. The folks in England are suffering too.

Where guys like Bill fall down is, if somebody isn't as rabid as he is then they must be a kilt wearing nat. His default is sarcasm or outright nastiness as witnessed by his remarks to posters like the Barrhead fellow. I could see the point if any of his procrastinations were true. But he never backs them up with debate, he just switches to abuse. It isn't right and shouldn't be tolerated.

 

I get what you're saying. The Scottish deficit isn't written off by Westminister, but it is tolerated. That's where the EU would differ.

 

I have some sympathy with you regarding bill's online persona - you haven't won an argument if all you've done is pissed someone off to the point where they stop talking to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying. The Scottish deficit isn't written off by Westminister, but it is tolerated. That's where the EU would differ.

 

I have some sympathy with you regarding bill's online persona - you haven't won an argument if all you've done is pissed someone off to the point where they stop talking to you.

 

At least you are attempting to see what I'm saying mate. I'm not in any way saying the EU would tolerate our debts. I'm not a supporter of the EU but am afraid of the carnage heading our way by our decision to leave.

As said, pointing out one or two mistakes in someones stance does not make me diametrically opposed to them and nothing gets my blood up more than another person, especially one who knows nothing about me, sticking me in a wee box - and more especially labelling me a fecking nat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it's just the tax system. In the UK, as we've seen on here, people are loath to pay high income tax, so we keep that relatively low and charge loads elsewhere.

 

But key to understanding it is the way tax works here. Tax is generally placed not on essentials but instead on what is perceived as luxury.

 

So with income tax, if you're on a low wage you're on low tax so you can afford the essentials. High wage, then essentials aren't a problem and so you're taxed more as you can afford luxuries.

 

VAT is by definition on luxuries.

 

Stamp duty means you're buying a house, which is now considered a luxury if it's over 300k. The more expensive the house, the more the luxury, the more the tax.

 

Alcohol, tobacco, petrol, flying etc are all considered luxuries which also have a negative impact on society and/or the environment.

 

The point is to tax what people can afford, especially when they have excess, but creating a society where almost everyone can afford the basics.

 

The thing is, that there are far more lower income people than high income, and so they have a lot of power. Push them too far and they will take it - as in many revolutions. If the rich get too greedy they could end up in a communist state where no matter your job you get the same wage - or maybe just something that happened in the UK - 98% tax rates. To understand that, just try explaining to a low paid worker who works incredibly hard to just about pay the bills and live very basically in a run down council house, why you deserve to live so much better than them because of the work you do...

 

You think because you pay a lot of tax, you contribute a lot, but a lot of lower paid people, will see you as a taker as they will think you are a taking far too big a share of the finite resources to start with, and so you should be giving a lot of it back - especially when you're splashing it around on very expensive houses.

 

The point is we need some kind of balance to stop the gap between the haves and have-nots getting too big, otherwise it will eventually try to equalise itself in more angry ways.

 

The issue with your system (which I agree with in principle) is that the rich pay the far greater amount of tax in the system. The lower earners can have revolutions all they want, but if the rich get taxed to the point that they decide to change their tax jurisdiction then the amount of tax flowing into the system reduces, not increases. Tax rate increases do NOT mean increased tax revenues.

 

And if the rich decide to leave (look at Paradise Papers and how much potential UK tax left the country) then the poorer can complain all they want... but there will be deflation, services will be of poor quality and people will struggle even more than they do now.

 

Yes, there are more people on lower incomes - but I suspect that (and, yes, I am guessing) the vast majority of tax in the UK is paid by the top 20% earners. They leave and the country is, literally, in the shit.

 

I don't mind luxury taxes. However, to consider one's home a luxury is relative I guess. However.... the tax I paid whilst high, would have still been tax I had to pay on a property which was anything north of 145k. Is a 145k property in Scotland really a luxury ? I would also add that (maybe not in my case but certainly in the case of plenty of others) those taxes would be paid from after-tax pay. So a higher earner is buying a property at 375k (price of my place) and paying over 10k in tax (I had to pay extra as I have a small investment property in Killie) AFTER having paid 50% tax in the first place.

 

I don't see that as a luxury tax, but as a cash grab from government. I say it again... do the services that the British populace receive equate to the tax they pay - and I can almost guarantee that the answer is no. There is a TON of inefficiency in civil service (no disrespect to civil servants) which means it is inevitable that you don't get value for money from tax payments.

 

Sorry, but the government haven't a clue what people can "afford" so the notion that they are taxing you based on what you can afford is nonsense. Someone earning 20k may have more savings than someone earning 200k - probably means the person on 200k isn't good at fiscal management, but still doesn't mean they can afford more.

 

"You think because you pay a lot of tax, you contribute a lot, but a lot of lower paid people, will see you as a taker as they will think you are a taking far too big a share of the finite resources to start with, and so you should be giving a lot of it back - especially when you're splashing it around on very expensive houses." - sorry but I just cannot agree with this. Lower paid people considering me as a taker is an oxymoron. Think about what I said earlier... I have taken NOTHING from the UK economy - indeed, I have contributed to it over the 17 years I have been absent - so how can I possibly be a taker. Yet, without even stepping foot back in the country I am being asked to pay more tax than the average wage (almost) - having still received ZERO services from the country. And therein lies some of the problem. Some people (lower paid or not) will consider anyone doing better than them as a "taker", regardless if it is true or not. And, funnily enough, one of the major reasons I left the UK in the first place was because one of my own relatives was abusing the system and receiving a good "income" by being fraudulent, fraud which my taxes were paying. It wasn't for me and was why I decided to move somewhere that had a "consumption" tax, which suits me better.

 

I am not sure my house is "very expensive" by Scottish standards, though at 365k I stand to be corrected. However, it also takes for me to have a tenant in the converted flat to help subsidise my mortgage.

 

And maybe it is me - and I do understand that people work very hard and often for low wages - but I also worked very hard to attain the education I have. And I worked even harder to attain the professional designation I have. And I worked harder than anyone else to be the highest ranked finalist in Scotland for the ACCA qualification (yes... Bluedell... you CA snobs can look down your nose at me :D) - but working hard should be the natural fallback position.... difference being, and this I understand is controversial.... hard work from an early age is likely to result in the longer term financial benefits.... lower paid workers are, more than likely, having to work hard now because they didn't in school. And, admittedly, that is a very generalist statement, so if anyone takes exception I wouldn't disagree.

 

I can only relay my own personal careers fair.... every single kid had no idea what they wanted to do.... I stumbled into an accounting careers fair and saw adverts, in 1990, which said "50,000 plus housing allowance" or "35,000 plus car" - looked to me like accounting was the holy grail. We all got to make our own choices..... would I change my choice ? From a career and enrichment perspective ? Yes. Monetarily ? Maybe. But it is what it is.

Edited by craig
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, no one pointed out that a thin skin was required to post here.

 

I get the feeling some online Bears would have a nervous breakdown or require therapy if they heard some of the things said on the supporters bus I go on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the feeling some online Bears would have a nervous breakdown or require therapy if they heard some of the things said on the supporters bus I go on.

Especially when they couldn't pen a 750 word response after due reference to Google :laugh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the feeling some online Bears would have a nervous breakdown or require therapy if they heard some of the things said on the supporters bus I go on.

 

No Gonzo, there's nothing "delicate" about me. I've done my time on supporters buses. I'll be at this forums day out again if anybody decides they want to talk about any unwarranted remarks I may have aimed at them.

Online I will debate with anybody on a sensible level.

Folk that throw abuse around with nothing worthwhile to say or recognising what the argument is really about should stick to extreme forums at any end of the spectrum where everybody agrees and anyone outside that sphere deserves all they get for logging in .

On a forum such as this I'd rather the rest of us don't get sent to sleep reading the prattlings of a fool wasting our eyesight and more importantly our time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All very good but it works the other way too. Those that get get taxed more tend (not exclusively) to be those who are more educated, entrepreneurial or have specialist skills. Tax them too much then, if there is a market for their attributes elsewhere, then you end up with a brain drain and those people leaving the country. I think it is getting a bit like that now.

 

Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on what way you look at it) those people on a higher wage are those who are providing most to the country from a GDP / tax point of view. Should they not deserve to live somewhere better? It’s a hard question to answer but with all things “capitalism”, why should someone work hard / apply their skill when they are not remunerated accordingly?

 

I left the UK in September 2000 and I can assure you that the UK were very much aware at that point of the "brain drain" situation. As did the Canadian government. Difference being that the Canadian government recognized it and took measures to try to stem the tide (wasn't completely successful) but the UK did virtually nothing.

 

Brain drain is real. And can have a real, negative, impact on a country's wellbeing

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.